IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CMCP.No. 14 of 2009()
1. BABU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PETER JOHN ASWEZ
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.VINOD
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :20/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
CMC(P) No.14 OF 2009 in RFA
——————————————————–
Dated 20th July 2009
Order
BHAVADASAN, J.
The defendant, who suffered a decree at the hands of the
First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant.
2. The suit was one for specific performance. Ext.A1 dated
20.12.2006 is the agreement for sale. When the defendant did
not comply with the terms of the agreement, the suit was laid.
After considering the rival contentions, the suit was decreed,
granting specific performance and directing the plaintiff to
deposit the balance sales consideration within two months. The
defendant appealed against the said judgment and decree.
3. In the appeal before this court, the appellant has to pay
a court fee of Rs.50,400/-. According to him, he has no means
to pay the court fee. He, therefore, prays that he may be
permitted to file the appeal as indigent person.
4. The application was very strongly resisted by the
respondent, who pointed out that the appellant has means
CMC(P) 14/09 2
sufficient to pay the court fee and he has deliberately omitted to
include all his movable properties in the schedule. It is also
pointed out that the appellant has assets, which he has not
disclosed. Considering the rival claims, it was felt that it will be
appropriate to direct the lower court to consider the issue
regarding the assets available with the appellant and also call
for a report from the Tahsildar. The report of the Tahsildar
showed that the appellant has not disclosed all his movable
assets before the Sub Court. From the side of the plaintiff, PW1
to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The
defendant examined DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked.
5. From the report of the Tahsildar, it can be seen
that the appellant is a carpenter by profession. In the
report, it is also stated that he was doing carpentary work for a
building recently constructed. The trial court has also observed
that in order to claim the benefit, he has removed all the
movable articles to his wife’s house. It is also seen that the
appellant was able to pay another liability very recently. It is
further seen that quite recently, he has settled another money
CMC(P) 14/09 3
claim amounting to Rs.5 lakhs. Since the petitioner in this
petition has not disclosed all his assets and also since it is seen
from the report that he has sufficient means to pay the court fee,
this petition is only to be dismissed. The CMC(P) is accordingly
dismissed and the petitioner is given one month’s time from the
date of this order to pay the required court fee.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
CMC(P) 14/09 4